Australia Bans AI-Generated Music From Charts After Madonna Cover Hits Top 10

Australia's record industry won't chart tunes recorded in the key of AI

The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has decided it won't list AI-generated music on its charts of best-selling music. The decision comes into effect this week and follows two interesting musical moments of note. One came when an AI-assisted cover version of Madonna's Like a Prayer hit the top ten in Australia, stirring debate about whether using AI to make music is an off-key creative decision. The other was the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) pitching a set of principles "governing the eligibility of recordings developed with generative artificial intelligence services for inclusion in official music charts." The IFPI distilled its principles into the following chord of criteria that must be met for a tune to be included in the charts: * Any generative AI services used to develop the recording are properly authorised and lawful; * They are substantially human made; * They do not raise manipulation concerns; * They comply with applicable laws, including those relating to copyright, related rights, and personality rights; * The making available of the recordings does not breach the terms of the generative AI service used; * The use of generative AI services to develop the recording is appropriately signaled to consumers on downstream services (e.g., digital streaming platforms), in accordance with any applicable legislation and/or industry labelling standards. The IFPI's real beef with AI seems not to be the technology, but AI services that produce music without licensing it. "Tracks created using generative AI systems have been appearing on streaming services, however many of these have been developed with tools that have been trained on artists' music without authorization," the IFPI's announcement states. "To tackle this, record companies are driving the development and licensing of AI music services that respect the rights of music creators." A veritable choir of record companies - among them Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group - had a hand in developing the principles. And now those companies and chart-compilers won't publish counts of sales and streams by artists who create their works using AI services that don't license music. The IFPI announced its principles in late July. On Tuesday, ARIA became the first organization to adopt them. CEO Annabelle Herd offered a canned quote that rammed home the licensing message. "Artists already use AI tools in their work, the charts can and should evolve to keep room for that, but music generated wholesale by services built on artists' recordings is a different matter," she said. ®

AI-generated music barred from Australian charts after Madonna cover controversy

SYDNEY, Aug 26 (Reuters) - AI-generated music will be excluded from Australia's music charts starting this week, the country's peak music trade group said, following controversy over an Australian DJ's cover of Madonna's "Like a Prayer" topping local music charts. The Australian Recording Industry Association, or ARIA, said on Tuesday that wholly AI-generated tracks would no longer be eligible for its popular ARIA Charts, although recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role would remain eligible. A recording developed using generative AI will be eligible only if it is "substantially human made" ⁠and raises no concerns around streaming or chart manipulation, ARIA said. To distinguish AI-generated recordings from AI-assisted ones, ARIA said it would apply definitions from a labelling standard announced by the global music community in July. Major global record labels have been seeking new licensing arrangements to protect their vast catalogues as AI-generated music grows in popularity and consumers increasingly struggle to distinguish it from human-composed songs. "The ARIA charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed ⁠AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd said. ARIA compiles Australia's most popular songs and albums in the ARIA Charts, which are released on Apple Music and Spotify every Friday. Queensland-based DJ Josh Fawaz's ⁠cover of Madonna's 1989 hit "Like a Prayer" became the most-played song on Australian radio and reached No. 4 on two ARIA charts in July. Some producers alleged that generative AI had ⁠been used and that it was not initially disclosed. Reuters could not immediately contact Fawaz for comment. Responding to a music producer's criticism on Instagram in June, Fawaz said ⁠that although he used AI "as a tool, it's not that deep", adding he had been releasing music long before AI and his focus was to provide his listeners "good music." Reporting by Renju Jose in Sydney; Editing by Stephen Coates Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Australia's recording association bans AI-made music from charts - Engadget

The Australian Recording Industry Association announced today that any tracks wholly generated with AI will not be eligible for inclusion on the nation's music charts. The Code of Practice for the charts will allow songs that use generative AI to be counted, but only if the track in question "is substantially human made" and "raises no stream or chart manipulation concerns." These rules will apply to the charts beginning this Friday. Tracks not eligible for the charts will also not be able to win an ARIA Award. "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," said ARIA CEO, Annabelle Herd. "We call on all parties who have a role in deciding the music played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio, to support human artistry and implement similar changes across their own codes." This is a step in the direction that much of the global recording industry has been pushing for. ARIA's new policies echo the recommendations around AI use recently laid out by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI, in July. Last month, a group of major labels also called for charting organizations to prohibit the inclusion of AI slop. That effort included support from the big three of Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group.

Australia's music industry bans AI-generated tracks from official charts

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) -- Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."

Australia bans AI-made music from its charts unless humans wrote, performed, and created most of it

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. What just happened? Like a lot of people, Australia isn't a fan of music that's been wholly generated using AI. With millions of these tracks appearing on streaming services, the country's recording-industry body has officially barred them from its music charts. Starting this week, any release involving generative AI must be "substantially human made" to be eligible for a chart position. The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has updated its Charts Code of Practice to distinguish between AI-generated and AI-assisted music. The changes apply to the chart dated Monday, August 31, which will be published on Friday, August 28. The rules don't mean all music created with AI assistance is banned. A track put together with help from generative tools can still qualify, but the service must be authorized and lawful, the finished recording must be substantially human-made, and there can be no concerns about manipulated streams or chart positions. Importantly, humans must also have written the song and performed its lead vocal and primary instruments. ARIA can refuse an ineligible release, remove one retrospectively, recalculate chart positions, withdraw accreditations, and even demand the return of a number-one award. Any excluded recording is also barred from the ARIA Awards, though artists and their representatives will be able to appeal and submit evidence. "Artists already use AI tools in their work, the Charts can and should evolve to keep room for that, but music generated wholesale by services built on artists' recordings is a different matter," said ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd. The change comes after Queensland DJ Josh Fawaz's dance cover of Madonna's Like a Prayer spent four weeks atop Australia's national radio airplay chart and amassed more than 38 million Spotify streams. The cover's credits were later updated to acknowledge AI-generated vocals and drums. ARIA hasn't formally ruled on the track, but a spokesperson said lead vocals or key instrumentals created by AI would probably make a release ineligible. This isn't the first time an AI act has caused controversy on the charts. AI country artist Breaking Rust reached number one on Billboard's Country Digital Song Sales chart last year with Walk My Walk. The generic-sounding virtual cowboy still attracted more than two million monthly Spotify listeners and carried a Verified Artist badge. The amount of AI-made music has exploded recently. Spotify removed 75 million low-effort AI tracks in 2025, while bots were uploading around 100,000 songs per day. Deezer previously said about 20,000 AI-generated tracks were arriving on its service daily, with 70% of streams involving such music deemed fraudulent.

Australia bans songs heavily created by AI from its official music charts

Songs that are largely or wholly created by AI have been banned from Australia's music charts. From this week, all releases must be "substantially human made" to be eligible. The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) said the new code would help "promote the human nature of artistry". It follows a controversy around a cover of Madonna's Like A Prayer by Australian DJ Josh Fawaz which recently topped the ARIA dance singles chart and peaked at number 2 on the country's overall chart. The song has become a staple of commercial radio station playlists and been streamed more than 48 million times on Spotify alone. Fawaz later added generative AI credits to the song after a backlash. ARIA said that Australian artists were competing for attention "in the most crowded market in history" and that it was "not interested in promoting or celebrating the success of AI-generated music that does not contain human artistry". Under the new rules, AI assistance can still be used, but humans must have written the song, and have performed the lead vocal and primary instruments. AI can also still be used for mastering songs and, for example, using drum machines and auto tune. Earlier this year a song was banned from Sweden's music charts because it was created by AI. And in July, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said AI guidelines would be rolled out in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia for use in their official charts. The updated code, based on the IFPI directive, also excludes music that raises "stream or chart manipulation concerns". ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is, to say the least, a rapidly developing space." "Artists already use AI tools in their work, the charts can and should evolve to keep room for that, but music generated wholesale by services built on artists' recordings is a different matter." She added: "A chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent." Artists will be required to declare AI use when they submit a song for chart consideration. ARIA said that if it later emerged music was largely AI-generated it could retrospectively adjust chart positions, and if the piece topped the charts, it may request that awards given for reaching Number One were returned. Artists and their representatives will be able to challenge their exclusion. Among the artists supporting the move are Australian electronic act Peking Duk. Last month, they shared an AI-assisted version of their 2014 hit High on Instagram, captioned: "When you re-record your own song with AI so Australian radio will play it." Band member Adam Hyde told Channel Nine's Today show that AI-generated music was "removing the human experience from life". In July last year, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised "the strongest possible protection" from AI for Australian creatives. Albanese pledged that writers and musicians would be able to choose if and how their work was used in the training of AI, saying it would be "theft" if creatives lost that control and were not paid for its use.

Australia bans AI-generated music -- only 'substantially human made' music is eligible to make the charts | Fortune

Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."

Australia's top music charts ban AI songs

Sydney (AFP) - Music made by artificial intelligence will be banned from Australia's top charts under new guidelines aimed at protecting "the human nature of artistry", an industry body said Tuesday. Under new rules in force from Friday, music must be "substantially human made" in order to be eligible for the charts, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) said. "Wholly AI-generated tracks will not be eligible for the ARIA Charts," the group said. It said its charts would exclude songs that use AI "to generate the entirety or the primary portion of the creative elements". But "recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible," it added. The move follows growing concern in the music industry over a surge in AI-generated music hitting the airwaves. In July, a cover of Madonna's "Like a Prayer" soared to the top of the charts in Australia but drew scrutiny after it was revealed to have used AI-generated vocals and drums. Streaming giant Spotify has said it will launch a new "AI Persona" badge clearly identifying content producers that are AI-generated and not real people. More than one-third of new uploads to Apple Music are entirely created with AI, a platform executive told Billboard this year. That month several major music industry organisations unveiled a labelling system for content created with generative AI that they would like to see widely adopted. "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space," ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd said. "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," she said.

Australia's Music Industry Bans AI-Generated Tracks From Official Charts

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) -- Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."

This Country's Music Industry Is Banning AI-Generated Tracks From Official Charts

Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements. MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) -- Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."

Australia's music industry bans AI-generated tracks from official charts

The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is - to say the least - a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."

AI created music banned by Australian Recording Industry Association

By taking this step, they hope to promote human made music instead. A major problem with today's world is that it's so hard to tell what is AI and what isn't. Fakes are spreading, and the concern that this will negatively impact art is a real fear, since AI relies so heavily on using pre-existing material as a foundation. Now, the Australian Recording Industry Association (thanks, AP) has announced that AI-generated music will be completely banned from the charts going forward. The ban applies only to songs created entirely by AI, however; if AI is used only to a minor extent, it's still considered acceptable. The goal is to protect human creativity, which is why AI-generated music will also be excluded from the ARIA Awards.

Australia excludes AI-generated songs from charts: India next?

Australia's official music charts will exclude wholly AI-generated recordings from next week, while allowing recordings that use generative artificial intelligence (AI) in a supporting role. The change raises a question for India's music industry: should India's industry-recognised charts distinguish between music made substantially by humans and music generated substantially by AI? The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has updated its Charts Code of Practice so that recordings using generative AI will be eligible only where they are "substantially human made" and raise no concerns about stream or chart manipulation. The new rules take effect with the ARIA chart dated August 31, published on August 28. The rules do not amount to a blanket ban on AI-assisted music. ARIA uses the July industry labelling definitions to distinguish AI-generated recordings, where generative AI creates the entirety or primary portion of the creative elements, from AI-assisted recordings, which remain substantially human-made. That distinction is becoming more important as music platforms develop rules for AI-generated material. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) announced in July that it would roll out new global principles for the eligibility of AI-developed recordings in official charts. The framework also requires compliance with applicable copyright, related-rights and personality-rights laws, as well as appropriate signalling of AI use to listeners. The principles require an AI-developed recording to meet several criteria before it can enter an official chart. IFPI says the principles are being applied to its directly managed charts and through its national-group network, including ARIA and more than 20 other official chart programmes. India does not appear in the list of national chart programmes named by IFPI in its July announcement. India does have an industry-recognised chart, although the current Indian Music Industry (IMI) chart covers international singles. The IMI describes its International Top 20 Singles chart as the first official industry-recognised music chart launched in India, with IMI and record labels setting the rules and standards for the chart. The chart covers non-Indian-language tracks and is calculated from streaming data from Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music in India. We could not find an AI-specific eligibility rule in IMI's publicly available chart material. That makes Australia relevant to India without making the two systems interchangeable. The question is whether IMI, streaming services and Indian labels think a recording created substantially by AI should compete for a chart position on the same terms as a recording created substantially by people. Why this is more than a question about "AI music" The immediate issue is not whether musicians can use AI. ARIA explicitly allows AI assistance where human creativity remains central. IFPI's framework takes the same approach. Its stated approach is to distinguish legitimate AI use in the creative process from recordings that are primarily synthetic, unauthorised or subject to stream or chart manipulation. That matters because a chart is not simply a list of songs that received streams. It is also a cultural and commercial ranking. A chart position can affect visibility, radio exposure, editorial attention and an artist's perceived success. That matters because a chart is not simply a list of songs that received streams. It is also a cultural and commercial ranking. A chart position can affect visibility, radio exposure, editorial attention and an artist's perceived success. The concern becomes sharper when the production of music itself becomes extremely cheap. If large numbers of AI-generated tracks can be produced and distributed cheaply, chart systems face a different problem from traditional music promotion: how do they distinguish genuine audience demand from large-scale uploads, synthetic artists and artificial streaming activity? Spotify has already linked AI-generated music to these issues. In 2025, Spotify announced a music spam filter aimed at identifying mass uploads, duplicates, artificially short tracks and other spam tactics that can dilute the royalty pool. It also began supporting an industry-standard system for AI disclosures in music credits, developed through DDEX. In August, Spotify announced AI Persona badges for artist profiles whose public identity appears to represent a photorealistic AI-generated person, as reported by MediaNama earlier. Spotify says music from these profiles will generally be excluded from editorial and algorithmic recommendations unless a listener shows intentional engagement, such as following the artist. The company separately says the badge concerns the artist's identity, not how the music was made. That distinction is useful for India too. Labelling an AI-generated artist, labelling the use of AI in a recording, and excluding substantially AI-generated recordings from charts are three different interventions. The Indian labels have their own stake in the question The principles were outlined by a coalition including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group and were then rolled out by IFPI across its chart network. But the Indian market also has large domestic catalogues and labels that would be affected by any shift in how AI-made music is distributed or ranked. Saregama Managing Director Vikram Mehra told investors in May that authenticated, human-created music with clear provenance could become more valuable as AI-generated music expands. Mehra also discussed licensing opportunities for Saregama involving generative AI platforms. That is a more complicated position than simply being for or against AI: AI can be both a risk to existing catalogues and a potential licensing market. Tips Music has also described AI-generated music as both an opportunity and a risk, citing new creative possibilities alongside concerns around copyright, royalties and the value of human-created recorded music. Those positions matter because a chart rule can affect more than what listeners see at number one. It can influence how labels distribute music, how platforms identify and surface it, and how rights holders think about the commercial value of human-created recordings. The harder question is enforcement ARIA's rule sounds straightforward on paper: substantially AI-generated recordings are out, while substantially human-made recordings using AI remain eligible. The difficult part will be determining where an individual recording falls on that spectrum. ARIA says it will use the definitions from the industry's July AI labelling standard. That standard distinguishes AI-generated recordings from AI-assisted ones by looking at the creative elements produced by AI, including lead vocals and key instrumental performances. The system also depends on chart compilers receiving reliable information about how a recording was made. IFPI's principles also require AI use to be appropriately signalled to consumers on downstream services. India would face the same practical problem if it adopted such a system. A chart compiler would need enough information about how a recording was produced to decide whether it is eligible. That raises questions about who makes the disclosure, whether labels and distributors can be trusted to provide it, and what happens when an artist says a recording is human-made but the chart compiler has reason to disagree. There is also a fairness question. An artist using AI for a small part of a production is not necessarily comparable to an account uploading hundreds of largely synthetic tracks. A useful chart rule would need to distinguish those cases rather than treating every use of AI as equivalent. What should India do? MediaNama could not find a public IMI rule barring substantially AI-generated tracks from the IMI chart. MediaNama also could not find a public announcement from IMI saying that it intends to adopt IFPI's new chart principles. We have therefore asked IMI whether it intends to adopt the new global principles and, if not, how it intends to treat substantially AI-generated recordings. We have also asked Spotify, Amazon Music, JioSaavn and Hungama Music whether they currently provide AI-related labels or credits for recordings in India, how AI-generated or AI-assisted tracks are treated in their editorial or algorithmic promotion systems, and whether they support separate chart eligibility rules for substantially AI-generated music. We have asked Sony Music India, Universal Music India, Warner Music India, Saregama and Tips Music how they view the Australian approach and whether they believe India needs a similar distinction between AI-assisted and substantially AI-generated music. The questions sent to these stakeholders are: * Should substantially AI-generated recordings be eligible for India's industry-recognised music charts on the same terms as substantially human-made recordings? * How should chart compilers distinguish AI-assisted recordings from recordings in which AI generates the primary creative elements? * Should AI-generated music be labelled to listeners, and should that information affect editorial promotion, recommendations or chart eligibility? * What safeguards are needed to prevent AI-generated music and synthetic streaming from distorting royalties, discovery and chart rankings? The Australian decision does not answer those questions for India. But it gives Indian chart compilers a concrete model to consider.

Australia's music industry bans AI-generated tracks from official charts

Australia's recorded music industry will bar tracks wholly generated by artificial intelligence from official charts as burgeoning generative technologies threaten artists' livelihoods, a representative said on Tuesday. The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna's pop hit "Like a Prayer" created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI's place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association's top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday. Wholly AI-generated tracks will be banned from the ARIA charts from Monday next week, but some AI-assisted music will remain eligible, an ARIA statement said. Tracks can be eligible only if "humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments," among other requirements, the statement said. AI-generated music would also be ineligible for the Australian industry's prestigious ARIA awards. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said: "These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is -- to say the least -- a rapidly developing space." "The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent," Herd added. Eligible music must also be produced using legal AI services. Music was appearing on streaming services that had apparently been developed with AI tools trained on artists' music without authorization. The Australian rules are in step with new principles released in July by the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The federation represents the recording industry worldwide. The international guidelines state that to qualify for official music charts, a track must be "substantially human made." Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver told Australian Broadcasting Corp. the debate around AI in music was "exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians and so everyone will have a different opinion." Weaver applauded ARIA's move as a "wonderful step forward" that sent a message ARIA wanted to "prioritize and value human creativity." "It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape," Weaver said. "There is a way to use it while you're still steering the ship and making the main creative choices."